††††
†Criminal; Whether Defendant Deprived of Right to Counsel by Admission of
Incriminating Statements Made to Cooperating Informant; Whether Right to
Confrontation Violated by Restriction of Defendantís Cross-Examination of
Informant. The defendant was arrested and charged with murder and robbery in
connection with robberies of convenience stores in Norwalk, Greenwich and
Stamford. †A store clerk was fatally shot in the Norwalk incident, and a clerk
was shot and injured during the Greenwich robbery.† Initially, the defendant
was arrested only for the Stamford robbery.† The state placed a cooperating
informant in the defendantís jail cell, and the informant recorded statements the
defendant made about the Norwalk and Greenwich robberies.† The defendant did
not make any statements about the Stamford robbery.† Over the defendant's
objection, the three cases were joined for trial.† The defendant sought to
suppress the statements he made to the informant, claiming that, because he was
represented by counsel with respect to the Stamford charges at the time the
statements were solicited, their admission would violate his sixth amendment
right to counsel.† The trial court denied the motion and the state introduced
the statements at trial.† The state also presented testimony from Teran Nelson,
a coconspirator in the Greenwich case.† Nelson was to receive immunity from
prosecution on criminal charges in exchange for his testimony, and he testified
regarding the defendant's involvement in the Greenwich robbery and his purported
confession to the Norwalk robbery and homicide.† The defendant was convicted of
the charges in all three cases and he appeals, claiming that the trial court
improperly denied his motion to suppress his statements.† He contends that,
because the statements were deliberately elicited by a government agent and
incriminated him in the Stamford case, their admission at trial on the charges
stemming from the Stamford robbery violated his right to counsel.† The
defendant maintains that, even though the statements did not reference the
Stamford robbery, they were nonetheless incriminating because the evidence that
he committed the other robberies tended to show his involvement in the Stamford
robbery.† The defendant also claims that the trial court violated his right to confrontation
by precluding him from questioning Nelson about topics that were relevant to
his credibility, including whether Nelsonís deal with the state required that
he testify to a certain version of the events.† The defendant maintains that the
restrictions on his cross-examination prevented the jury from properly
assessing the reliability of Nelson's testimony.†